"Low cost" 35mm lens for M9: your suggestions and opinions

[andriirad]

Because 35mm - is my favorite focal length for the street photo, my 35mm Skopar PII almost glued to my M9 for last half of year) Anyway, I have a desire to move further and get some more "serious" lens for affordable budget. So...here is basically the options, that I personally have according to my budget:
1. Biogon ZM 35mm 2.0
2. Biogon ZM 35mm 2.8
3. Summaron-m 35mm 2.8
4. Summarit-m 35mm 2.5
or...
5. Summicron-m 35mm 2.0 ASPH
The last one is obviously the best option, but its kind of on the real edge of my budget and I will be happy to find out, that I can get some very similar "quality" lens, but for more "kind" price)
I also have only 2 requirements for the 35mm lens, what I wanna buy:
1. Perfect flare resistance
2. Good sharpness from center to corner starting from f4 (preferably from wide open)
I have owned before Biogon ZM 35mm 2.0 (it was the sweet time of shooting with Epson R-D1s) and that was really good lens. You probably also know the reputation of this lens like "as good, or even better, than Summicron 35mm ASPH". However, according to my experience, I can not say that it could be true for a few reasons. First of all my sample of Biogon had some small build quality issue: when I turned my camera in vertical orientation - the focusing ring of the Biogon starting to move kind of tough, so I have to use a little force to move it front and back. In horizontal orientation focusing ring moved flawless and without any issue. Another concern was about overall sharpness of the lens. Basically Biogon was sharp enough for all of the cases, but if we reviewing it like the lens, which is so good as 35mm Summicron ASPH, it will be good to say that the overall sharpness of the lens is beyond this reputation. My sample of Biogon have some visible softness in the corners starting from f2.0 and up to f4.0 (you can see the attached picture, which is showing the sharpness of the lens on f4.0). From f5.6 lens was sharp enough from centre to corners. I can not say that it was a big issue, but after lots of feedbacks that this lens is really producing the "cron ASPH" IQ, I was a little disappointed. In defeat of that lens I can say, that the rendering, resolution and the famous "Zeiss 3D look" of the pictures were up to really high standards.
Now I'm shooting with Skopar 35mm PII and its really good, but the softness in the corners (up to f8.0) and his well known flare resistance making me thinking all the time to get something better.
After I bought some time ago old used Summicron-M 50mm 2.0 type III and found out his OUTSTANDING performance in all of the directions (resolution, overall sharpness, flare resistance, bokeh, etc.) I made a conclusion that if you really wanna get "Leica quality" of your pictures - buy Leica lens! Well, sometimes you need to pass through few "situations" - to realize an obvious things)
So! For now I'm mostly curious about Summaron 35mm 2.8 and Summarit 35mm 2.5 (I also add 2 lenses from Zeiss, just in case if my Biogon 35mm was not really good sample and the rumors, that goes around ZM 35mm lenses are really true).
Summaron is old and have some lack of contrast (according to the some feedbacks, that I read about it), but it have 0.7m minimal focusing distance, solid metal build quality and really good optical performance.
Summarit is a good modern Leica lens, but it have some softness in the corners (I never seen samples personally, but read lots of feedbacks about it), 0.8m minimal focusing distance, some distortion and little worse build quality, than 35mm cron ASPH.
So I will be really glad for your suggestions and thoughts about my searching. Also I'll be even more than happy, if someone of you will be so kind - to attach few samples of your summaron and summarit pictures, where I can see the sharpness from center to corner on wide open aperture.

 

[raid]

Not everyone likes the 35/2 asph.

1. Biogon ZM 35mm 2.0
2. Biogon ZM 35mm 2.8 ==> a classic
3. Summaron-m 35mm 2.8 ==> for B&W
4. Elmarit-m 35mm 2.5
5. Summicron-m 35mm 2.0 ASPH

 

[andriirad]

Good to see your reply, raid! What will be your personal suggestion for me, from all the 5 lenses, mentioned in this tread?

 

[Keith]

My 35mm f2 Biogon is probably my most used lens on my M240. It would be my pick of the options you're considering. 🙂

 

[ferider]

I hope you realize that you have some really high requirements. I assume what you really mean is "how to buy a Leica Summicron 35/2 ASPH for less than US 1k", right ? 😉

Remember that the Summaron is from the late 50s. It has very high center performance, but will benchmark lower than your color skopar in the field and wrt flare.

Here is what I suggest you do: Buy 3 new Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8 lenses, pick the best, and send the other two back. Otherwise there is high risk that you might be disappointed.

Roland.

 

[andriirad]

My 35mm f2 Biogon is probably my most used lens on my M240. It would be my pick of the options you're considering. 🙂

Ty for your suggestion, Keith! May I ask your opinion about the overall sharpness of Biogon, you owning? How sharp is it from center to corner? Did you notice some visible softness in the corners up to f4.0-f5.6?

 

[andriirad]

I hope you realize that you have some really high requirements. I assume what you really mean is "how to buy a Leica Summicron 35/2 ASPH for less than US 1k", right ? 😉

Remember that the Summaron is from the late 50s. It has very high center performance, but will benchmark lower than your color skopar in the field and wrt flare.

Here is what I suggest you do: Buy 3 new Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8 lenses, pick the best, and send the other two back. Otherwise there is high risk that you might be disappointed.

Roland.

I do realize, that my requirements are a little above my budget, but...how we say in my Country: the hope dying last)
Ty, Roland, for your opinion regarding Summaron! If it performs so poor, compare to the Skopar - it definitely not worse of buying.
About your suggestion with 3 Biogons lenses, I can say that if I have a budget to buy all 3 in the same time - I would never start this thread)

 

[ferider]

Hi Andriirad,

my point with the 3 Biogons is that lens performance varies depending on sample, and your requirements are high enough that it will matter ... you can also buy the Biogons in sequence, from a store that allows returns. Or even better, in a store that allows you to try before you buy. Any lens that you buy used on ebay will likely disappoint you.

Note that I currently own 4 Leica mount 35mm lenses (including a v3 Summicron), and one 40mm lens, and I love them all. But none of them would pass your quality citeria.

Best,

Roland.

 

[raid]

Good to see your reply, raid! What will be your personal suggestion for me, from all the 5 lenses, mentioned in this tread?

I don't own any of the 5 lenses, but I have used the Biogon 35/2.8, and I loved the B&W images and the color images from this lens.

I use a Summilux 35/1.4 as my standard 35mm lens. Is it perfect? Maybe not, but I like using it a lot. It gives me images that I like. i also like using the 8 element (old) Summicron 35/2. A new edition for me is the Nikon 35/1.8 ltm. This is a great lens too.

 

[bobby_novatron]

I've cycled through a few 35mm lenses, including the C-Biogon, Summarit-M, and most recently the Summicron-M.

The Summicron 35/2 ASPH is (in my humble) fantastic. Sharp, with great character. But as you mentioned it's at the far end of your budget. And again, these things are somewhat subjective. One person's 'sterile' is another person's beauty.

I also agree with your statement about the Biogon not being the true equivalent of the Summicron. Having used both, I also found the same result. The Zeiss is nice, but the Leica is better. 'Nuff said.

I didn't really care for my Summarit-M, but I owned the older non-ASPH version. I have no experience with the new formula.

Best of luck in your search!

 

[Keith]

One lens that hasn't been mentioned is the M mount version of the Konica 35mm f2. I had one for a while and couldn't fault it in any way. I did feel it lacked a little character though!

 

[rscheffler]

If you don't care about size and you're considering the Cron ASPH, then for less money you can get a technically superior lens in the new ZM 35/1.4. Yes, It's big, but it has possibly the most consistent (flat) across-frame sharpness of all rangefinder 35mm lenses (at least currently in production), already from nearly wide open. And it has a good amount of the 'Zeiss look' too (if you like that).

If you want something smaller... I'm not sure... I have the ZM 35/2.8 and it's quite flare resistant but I wouldn't consider it an amazing across-frame performer at wider apertures. Here the f/2 Biogon is likely better except for the extreme corners, which stay soft.

The Cron ASPH will have wavy field curvature through middle aperture values until you stop down enough for depth of field to mask it. Really depends what you're shooting with it. Brick walls and the such, and you probably won't like it. Non-planar scenes and you probably won't notice often.

If you don't find anything, then I'd suggest getting a Sony RX1 and calling it a day. Its 35/2 Sonnar is possibly the best all-round ~35mm lens I've ever used. Not perfect, but close to it in many ways.

Just a note about the Konica Hexanon 35/2 - I believe it was a limited production lens and as a result it's somewhat of a collector's lens, meaning you'll pay accordingly. Probably around $1500 USD+

 

[ferider]

One lens that hasn't been mentioned is the M mount version of the Konica 35mm f2. I had one for a while and couldn't fault it in any way. I did feel it lacked a little character though!

Looking at the lens diagrams, I think the 35/1.7 Ultron is a redesign of the original 35/2 M-Hexanon (not the limited production UC Hexanon), replacing two spherical with one aspherical element.

Maybe just wait for the release of the new 35/1.7 Ultron ? I very much liked my LTM copy, and it was very sharp corner to corner at f4.

Roland.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I picked up a Biogon 2.8 to tide me over while Leica has my 35 Lux FLE. It is surprisingly good. I was going to sell it when the Lux comes back but I think i'm going to keep it.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

If you can give up the unicorn of perfect flare resistance, I'm very fond of the Canon 35/2, and it's quite affordable.

 

[Pioneer]

I tried the Summicron ASPH, tried the Biogon 2.8 and bought the Biogon 2. Still use the Color Skopar 90% of the time on my M9. Color is great and it blocks none of the viewfinder.

I am seriously considering selling the Biogon and picking up the Norton 35/1.4. Price is good, performance is very good and the 1.4 max aperture is far enough away from 2.5 to mean something.

DISCLAIMER - I really only tried the Summicron for a week and I suspect the price chased me off more than the performance. It was really hard for me to justify that much of a premium for that little bit of an advantage in performance. There are obviously others who would disagree. YMMV.

 

[mexipike]

I just picked up the new 35 sumarit 2.4 ASPH and find it to be exceptional. They improved the build quality between the 2.5 and the 2.4 and added the aspherical element. I don't have an m9 so can't comment on color but it looked perfect on my monochrom. It's also super small and light and you can buy it new for the price of a used summicron with the luxury of the Leica warranty .

 

[teleparallel]

You should not consider the color skopar a unserious shooter. Why not just upgrade for the Nokton options, 1.2 for serious performance, or 1.4 for a little more speed yet compact?

 

[andriirad]

Big thank you for all replies, fallows!
Wanna throw a few words, regarding posted suggestions about hexanon and canon lenses. I'll never forget the case, when I was in search for 28mm lens for my R-D1s and found the thread about Hexanon 28mm...Guys, there were almost 100% positive feedbacks about that lens, from its owners! To describe the performance of the 28mm Hex happy users were used the words not worse than "Amazing" "Gorgeous" and so on. I was so impressed about it, that decide to get one. Well...I can tell you, that I was never more disappointed, then that time. That lens was absolutely NOTHING, compare to the very best feedbacks that I read before! Poor sharpness, not really small size...just a regular lens. Sold it and never wanna go back to another Hex)
Now I'm gonna write about the Canon lens) I also used to have Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM about year ago. Again, nothing special: old and heavy lens, with poor overall performance. Yes, somebody can talk about "classic" or "vintage" look of the pictures, made with its help, but I prefer to use more honest and less subjective terms, such as "soft" and "flare")
Really want to ask you a little more opinions about Summarit 35mm f2.5 (not the newer, aspherical one). How is it performing with a corner sharpness on f.2.5, compare (for example) with a picture, that I attached to the first post?

P.s: don't really wanna try the Nokton 1.2 due to its WEIGHT) 1.4 could be an option, but I heard about some cases with focus shift on it + I really doubt that it will be sharper than my current Skopar. I don't really need the 1.2, 1.4, etc aperture, cause in 95% of cases I'm shooting with 5.6-8.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Now I'm gonna write about the Canon lens) I also used to have Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM about year ago. Again, nothing special: old and heavy lens, with poor overall performance. Yes, somebody can talk about "classic" or "vintage" look of the pictures, made with its help, but I prefer to use more honest and less subjective terms, such as "soft" and "flare")

Well, the 50/1.2 is a different lens from the 35/2. They're both Planar, but the 35/2 is super sharp in the center and has nice contrast and kind of a distinctive signature compared to other common 35s. It's also really compact. But whatev.